linux-kernel - Re: small author mixup (was: git pull KVM updates for 2.6.26rc)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080430082032.GA23528@elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:20:32 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Carsten Otte <cotte@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: small author mixup  (was: git pull KVM updates for 2.6.26rc)

* Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com> wrote:

> While it is not a typical case, is there a better way of specifying 
> multiple authors to avoid future confusion?

i think the established rule is that there's one Author field per 
commit. Multiple authors should either submit a tree with multiple 
commits (which shows the exact lineage of work) - or, for nontrivial 
joint work where the development tree would be way too messy, expose 
proper credits in copyrights/credit info in the source code. It's seldom 
that work is split exactly in half - better spell out who did what both 
in the source code and in the commit log - without trying to formalize 
the From/Author line. [which line will always be imprecise for multiple 
authors.]

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/